November 10th 2012


  Buy Issue 2888
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: Why Gillard's Asia White Paper will fail

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Coalition must restore the baby bonus

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Folly of the new tax that raises no money

FOOD SECURITY: We need a better water plan

VICTORIA: Victorian sex abuse inquiry is too narrow

CLIMATE CHANGE: It's time to rethink climate change

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Romney draws level with Obama in presidential race

UNITED STATES: Protests at US embassy's 'Gay Pride' promotion

SOCIETY: Steps we can take to strengthen marriage

SCIENCE: Honey, I really do want to shrink the kids

ESPIONAGE: Canada, the CIA and Hollywood: The unlikely success story from the 1979 Iran hostage crisis

LETTERS

CINEMA: The riddle of literary creativity

BOOK REVIEW: Lonely pioneer of trade liberalisation

BOOK REVIEW: Beginning where most other Titanic books end

Books promotion page
FONT SIZE:

FOREIGN AFFAIRS:
Romney draws level with Obama in presidential race


by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, November 10, 2012

This article was written before News Weekly went to press on October 31, and before American voters cast their vote on November 6. Barack Obama has been re-elected President of the United States of America. 

Two weeks before the presidential election, which will shape America for the next four years, the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, drew level with President Barack Obama after trailing consistently since the party primaries some months ago. At the time of writing, the momentum had swung towards the challenger.

Even before the third and final presidential debate on October 22 (US time), a range of US polls showed that Romney had clawed his way back into the race, being ahead in polls conducted by Gallup Tracking, the Rasmussen Report, Reuters news agency, and others.

For President Obama, the main concern is that the tide of opinion seems to be swinging against him on a number of issues. Despite the President’s efforts to mobilise Latino and black Americans behind him, there is a widespread perception that under Obama the economy has stagnated.

Obama has also antagonised social conservatives by his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.

This is important as voting in the US is not compulsory, and both sides commit heavily to getting their supporters to vote.

Further, Obama’s efforts to encourage the Arab Spring — in the naïve belief that it would lead to democratisation in the region — have turned out to be entirely self-defeating. Islamist forces have now won power in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, murdered the US Ambassador in Libya, and threaten to seize control of Afghanistan and Syria.

The Obama Administration has imposed sanctions on Iran over its program of enriching uranium to make the country nuclear weapons-capable. Nevertheless Iran has defiantly declared its intention to proceed, despite a collapsing economy, hyperinflation and declining oil revenues.

In the third presidential debate, dealing with foreign policy, Mr Romney and President Obama swapped barbs about each other’s competence, but also tried hard to avoid subjects which might allow them to be construed as uninformed or unsophisticated in dealing with complex global challenges.

One Canadian observer, Patrick Martin, observed, “The fact that on foreign policy there was nothing dramatically different about the Obama and Romney positions on Iran or Syria (or Libya, Iraq and Israel for that matter) meant that candidate Romney achieved his most important goal. He could not be described as extreme, since that would have meant President Obama was equally extreme.”

Martin added, “In the course of the 90-minute debate, Mr Romney displayed sufficient knowledge of foreign issues and adequate strength of character to avoid being tagged as either uninformed or weak.

“And by taking any foreign policy difference out of the equation, the election now is likely to be won on the economy, the battleground that Mr Romney prefers, and where Mr Obama’s strengths are more limited.”

John O’Sullivan, editor-at-large of National Review, even went so far as to say that the television debates had turned the election.

He said, “Monday night’s debate probably decided the 2012 presidential election for Governor Mitt Romney. This is a hesitant prediction because there might be many October surprises, extraneous to the debates, that divert the current direction of opinion between now and November the 6th. But the three debates have allowed voters to ‘see’ the two candidates directly and clearly and, above all, without the distorting medium of either favourable advertising or hostile reporting.

“Taken together, the three debates have helped Romney rather than the President. Beforehand Romney was seen as a remote, calculating, unsympathetic, cold-hearted venture capitalist. Now that they are complete, he has a far more favourable image: well-informed, authoritative, presidential.

“President Obama by contrast is seen as a competent and well-informed executive but less the towering world-historical figure who won the 2008 election. These transformations were the result of the debates which entirely overturned the previous conventional wisdom that presidential debates have little impact on the election itself.”

As both the President and Mr Romney embarked on a frantic round of last-minute appearances in swing states, Heritage Foundation experts challenged several of President Obama’s statements in the last debate.

Referring to the defence budget, Baker Spring, research fellow on National Security Policy, said, “During the debate, President Obama asserted that his budget proposal maintains defence at about current levels. This is simply untrue.

“Here are the numbers from his Office of Management and Budget from this year’s budget request: in fiscal year 2010, defence spending was $721.3 billion in budget authority. Under the President’s proposal, defence spending will fall to $566.3 billion in fiscal year 2014. This is a 21 percent reduction in just four years.”

He added, “America’s military is the single most valuable contributor to increasing the likelihood of a peaceful and prosperous world. Large-scale reductions in the defence budget, therefore, put the prospects of a peaceful and prosperous world further out of reach.” 




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

COVER STORY Don't grieve dumped TPP; rather, thank Trump

ENVIRONMENT U.S. Congress to investigate shonky climate report

COVER STORY Money flows freely to fuel anti-coal campaign

ENVIRONMENT Ignore claims that Antarctic ice sheet will melt away

EDITORIAL What future has Senator Cory Bernardi?

EDITORIAL Commission report demonstrates old saying about statistics

ELECTRICITY Green policies threaten energy security and jobs



News and views from around the world

Scientists criticise "hottest year on record" hype (James Varney)

States, territories slash school funding by $100 million (Stephanie Balogh)

Confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (Stephen Mosher)

Rescuing Governor Ahok (Bob Lowry)

Future shock: What happens when robots take our jobs? (Adam Creighton)

President Trump: Protect religious freedom (Ryan Anderson)

China to crack down further on "cult" activities (Ben Blanchard)

Polish president rules out gay marriage (Radio Poland)

U.S. state legislatures sign 334 laws in five years to restrict abortion (Micaiah Bilger)

Clinton, Trump and the politics of the English language (Ben Reinhard)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am